THE ARGUMENT
THAT GREAT AND GOOD MEN HAVE BEEN AND ARE FREEMASONS,
EXAMINED.

IT is the universal practice of Freemasons to claim as
belonging to their fraternity a great many wise and good men.

As I have shown in a former number, Masonry itself claims to
have been founded by Solomon, and to have been patronized by St.
John. Their lodges are dedicated to St. John and Zerubbabel, as I
have shown; and Solomon figures more or less prominently in a
great number of their degrees. Now it has already been shown by
their highest authorities that this claim of having been founded
by Solomon and patronized by St. John is utterly without
foundation. Strange to tell, while it claims to have always been
one and identical, and that it never has been changed, still on
the very face of the different degrees it is shown that the great
majority of them are of recent origin. If, as their best
historians assert, Speculative Freemasonry dates no further back
than the eighteenth century, of course, the claim of Freemasons
that their institution was established and patronized by inspired
men can command no respect or confidence.

But, if this claim is false, what reason have we to have
confidence in their assertions that so many great and good men of
modern times were Freemasons. Investigation will prove that this
claim is to a very great extent without foundation. It has been
asserted here with the utmost confidence, over and over again,
that Bishop McIlvaine was a Freemason. But having recently been
written to on the subject, he replied that he never was a
Freemason.

Again, it is no doubt true that many men have joined them, and,
when they have taken a sufficient number of degrees to have the
impression entirely removed from their minds that there is any
secret in Freemasonry worth knowing, they have become disgusted
with its shams, its hypocrisies, its falsehoods, its oaths and its
ceremonies, its puerilities and its blasphemies; and they have
paid no further attention to it.

Freemasons have paraded the fact that Gen. Washington was a
Mason before the public. The following conclusion of a letter from
him will speak for him, and show how little he had to do with
Masonry. Before his death he warned the whole country to beware of
secret societies. The letter alluded to is dated "Mt. Vernon,
September 25, 1798." Here we have its conclusion. It needs no
comment:

"I have little more to add than thanks for your wishes, and
favorable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into
of my presiding over the English lodges in this country. The fact
is I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or
twice within the last thirty years. I believe, notwithstanding,
that none of the lodges in this country are contaminated with the
principles ascribed to the society of the Illuminati.

"Signed, GEORGE WASHINGTON."

I might quote numerous instances in which good men have at
first hesitated, and finally refused to go any further in Masonry,
and have threatened to expose the whole of it to the world.
Whoever will read Elder Stearns' little books on Masonry will find
examples of this.

But why should Freemasons lay so much stress on the fact that
many good men have been Freemasons? It has always been the
favorite method of supporting a bad institution to claim as its
patrons the wise and good. This argument might have been used with
great force, and doubtless was, in favor of idolatry in the time
of Solomon and the prophets. Several of the kings of Israel were
idolaters, as well as the queens and the royal family
generally.

The great mass of the prophets, and religious teachers, and
great men of the nation, lapsed into idolatry. Nearly all the
learning, and wealth and influence of the whole nation could be
appealed to as rejecting Christ. Those who received him were but a
few fishermen, with some of the lowest of the people. Now what a
powerful argument was this! If the argument of Masons be of any
value, how overwhelming an argument must this have been against
the claims of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Why the rejecters of Jesus could quote all the great men of the
nation, and the pious men, and the wise men, as decidedly opposed
to his claims! The same was true after his death and resurrection
for a great while. The question would often arise: "Do any of the
rulers believe on him?"

An institution is not to be judged by the conduct of a few of
its members who might have been either worse or better than its
principles. Christianity, e.g., is not to be judged by the conduct
of particular professed Christians; but by its laws, its
principles, by what it justifies and by what it condemns.
Christianity condemns all iniquity. It abhors covering up
iniquity. In the case of its greatest and most prominent
professors, it exposes and denounces their sin, and never
justifies But Masonry, on the other hand, is a secret work of
darkness. It requires its members to take an oath to cover up each
other's sins. It requires them to swear, under the most awful
penalties, that they will seek the condign punishment of every one
who in any instance violates any point of their obligation. It,
therefore, justifies the murder of those who betray its
secrets.

Masons consistently justified the murder of Morgan, as
everybody in this country knows who has paid any attention to the
subject.

This is not inconsistent with their principles. Indeed, it is
the very thing demanded, the very thing promised under oath.

But again: This same argument, by which Masons are attempting
to sustain their institution, was always resorted to to sustain
the practice of slaveholding.

Why, how many wise and good men, it was said, were
slaveholders. The churches and ecclesiastical bodies at the North
were full of charity in respect to them. They could not denounce
slaveholding as a sin.

They would say that it was an evil; but for a long time they
could not be persuaded to pronounce it a moral evil, a sin. And
why? Why, because so many doctors of divinity were slaveholders
and were defending the institution. Because a large portion of the
church, of nearly every denomination, were involved in the
abomination. "They are good men," it was said; "they are great
men--we must be charitable."

And so, when this horrid civil war came on, these great and
good men, that had sustained the institution of slavery, sustained
and stimulated the war.

Many of them took up arms, and fought with desperation to
sustain the institution. But what is thought now--at least
throughout all the North, and throughout all the Christian
world--of the great and good men who have done this thing? Who
does not now admit that they were deluded? that they had anything
but the Spirit of Christ? that they were in the hands of the Devil
all along?

The fact is, this has always been the device of those who have
sustained any system of wickedness. They have taken pains, in one
way and another, to draw into their ranks men of reputation for
wisdom and piety, men of high standing in Church and State. A
great many of those who are claimed by Freemasons to be of their
number never were Freemasons at all. Others were entrapped into
it, and turned a "cold shoulder" upon it, and paid no more
attention to it; but were ever after claimed as Freemasons.

But there are great multitudes of Freemasons who have taken
some of the degrees, and have become heartily disgusted with it.
But, knowing that Freemasons are under oath to persecute and even
murder them if they publicly renounce it and expose its secrets;
they remain quiet, say nothing about it, and go no further with
it; but are still claimed as Freemasons. As soon as public
sentiment is enough aroused to make them feel safe in doing what
they regard as their solemn duty, great numbers of them will no
doubt publicly renounce it. At present they are afraid to do so.
They are afraid that their business will be ruined, their
characters assailed, and their lives at least put in jeopardy.

But it should be understood that, while it may be true that
there are many pious and wise men belonging to the Masonic
fraternity, yet there are thousands of learned and pious men who
have renounced it, and thousands more who have examined its
claims, and who reject it as an imposture and as inconsistent
either with Christianity or good government

It is sometimes said: "Those men that renounced Masonry in the
days of Morgan are dead. There are now thousands of living
witnesses. Why should we take the testimony of the dead instead of
that of the living? The living we know; the dead we do not
know."

To this I answer, first: There are thousands of renouncing
Masons still living who reiterate their testimony on all proper
occasions against the institution. Many of them we know, or may
know; and they are not dead witnesses, but living. Now, if it was
wickedness that led those men to renounce Freemasonry and publish
its secrets, how is it that no instance has ever occurred in which
a seceding Freemason has renounced and denounced his renunciation,
and gone back into the ranks of Freemasons? I have never heard of
such a case. It is well for the cause of truth that this question
has come up again before the Masons that renounced the institution
in the days of Morgan were all dead. It is well that hundreds and
thousands of them are still alive, and are still living witnesses,
bearing their steady and unflinching testimony against the
institution.

But, again: The present living witnesses who testify in its
behalf, let it be remembered, are interested witnesses. They still
adhere to the institution. They are under oath not to speak
against it, but in every way to support it. Of what value, then,
is their testimony in its favor?

The fact is, we have their secrets published; and these books
speak for themselves. Let the living or the dead say what they
may, the truth is established that these books truly reveal
Masonry; and by this revelation let the institution stand or
fall.

If any thing can be established by human testimony, it is
established that Bernard's "Light on Masonry" has revealed Masonry
substantially as it is. Bernard is still living. He is an old man;
but he has recently said: "What I have written I have written on
this subject. I have nothing to add, and I have nothing to
retract." And there are still hundreds and thousands of men who
know that he has published the truth. How vain and frivolous,
then, is the inquiry, "Why should we not take the testimony of
living rather than of dead witnesses?" The prophets and apostles
are dead. Why not take the testimony of living skeptics that we
know? Some of them are learned and respectable men. Alas! if dead
men are not to be believed!

This
file is CERTIFIED BY GOSPEL TRUTH MINISTRIES TO BE
CONFORMED TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. For authenticity
verification, its contents can be compared to the
original file at www.GospelTruth.net
or by contacting Gospel Truth P.O. Box 6322, Orange, CA
92863. (C)2000. This file is not to be changed in any
way, nor to be sold, nor this seal to be
removed.